Plaintiff,
Jonathan J. Packard, an inmate at the Minnehaha County Jail
in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, filed a complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 on February 16, 2017. Docket 1.
Packard's sparse complaint alleges that his rights were
violated because defendants did not give him a motion
concerning the 180 day rule. Id. at 7. He requests
that the court dismiss the criminal charge against him in
state court. Id.

All
three prongs of the Younger doctrine are satisfied.
The crux of Packard's complaint concerns a seemingly
ongoing state proceeding. The state has an interest in
prosecuting its criminal laws. See Pennzoil Co. v.
Texaco, Inc.,481 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1987) (the desire to
avoid undue interference with legitimate activities of states
mandates application of Younger when the pending
state proceedings are criminal). Finally, Packard has the
ability to raise a due process claim, or any other
constitutional claim, as a defense in the state court
proceeding. "Minimal respect for the state processes, of
course, precludes any presumption that the state courts will
not safeguard federal constitutional rights."
Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar
Ass'n,457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982).

This
court does not have the power to grant an injunction unless
Packard shows that his case fits into an exception to the
Younger doctrine: the irreparable injury exception
or the bad faith or harassment exception. In
Younger, the Supreme Court stated that "when
[it is] absolutely necessary for protection of constitutional
rights, " a federal court may enjoin state officers from
instituting criminal actions. Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37, 45 (1971). Federal courts have this power only when
a plaintiff shows irreparable injury that is great and
immediate. Id. Packard has not alleged irreparable
harm, and he has therefore not alleged the grounds for this
Younger exception.

To the
extent Packard has already been convicted and seeks to
invalidate that conviction, his claims are Heck
barred. See Heck v. Humphrey,512 U.S. 477, 487
(1994) (holding if "a judgment in favor of the plaintiff
would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or
sentence[, ]" a claim for damages is not cognizable
under § 1983). If Packard wishes to invalidate his
conviction, he must file a habeas petition in state court
first, and then he may commence a federal habeas action. Both
state and federal courts have statute of limitations on
habeas claims.

Finally,
Packard only names judges as defendants. Judges are immune
from suit, including § 1983 suits, with two narrow
exceptions. "First, a judge is not immune from liability
for nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the
judge's judicial capacity. Second, a judge is not immune
for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the complete
absence of all jurisdiction." Schottel v.
Young,687 F.3d 370, 373 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting
Mireles v. Waco,502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)). These
exceptions do not apply here.

Accordingly,
it is ORDERED

1.
Packard's complaint (Docket 1) is dismissed without
prejudice.

2.
Packard's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.